write_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('write note to flomo') but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., creating a new note, overwriting existing content), authentication requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. This is minimal and does not add value beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short ('write note to flomo') to the point of under-specification. While it avoids verbosity, it barely adds information beyond the tool name and lacks a complete sentence structure. It is more under-specified than concisely sufficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description does not mention what happens on success/failure, response format, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that would be important for an agent to know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'content', which fully explains its meaning and Markdown formatting. The tool description itself adds no param details, but since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'write note to flomo' clearly states the action (write a note) and the target (flomo), making it specific enough to convey the tool's purpose. While it doesn't distinguish from siblings because none are listed, it is not a tautology and adds the destination context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. The description offers no context for if/when this should be chosen, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.